DPP v L (A)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Birmingham
• Judgment Date: 08 December 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] IECA 38
• Docket Number: 118/13
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Date: 08 December 2014

DPP v L (A)

The People at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

V

A.L.

Appellant

[2014] IECA 38

118/13

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Sentencing – Sexual assault – Severity of sentence – Appellant seeking to appeal against sentence – Whether sentence was unduly severe

Facts: The appellant, in 2007/2008, assaulted two young girls, EB and OH, when both were aged seven years. When the case came to court, the respondent, the DPP, offered assistance to the court by conveying the Director"s views that the offences were at the lower end of the scale but at the upper end of that lower range. The aggravating factors that were seen included the general circumstances of indecency which surrounded the slapping of the girls" bare bottoms, the breach of trust where these young girls had come to the home of a classmate and a playmate (the appellant"s daughter), the extreme youth of the girls and, as was made clear by the contents of two victim impact reports, the fact that the two incidents in question had had a very real impact on the victims. The appellant was sentenced in May, 2013 to six years imprisonment in respect of one count of sexual assault with provision also being made for six years post release supervision. The maximum applicable for the offence was a sentence of fourteen years. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against the severity of the sentence imposed on him. The appellant made the case that he had no previous convictions and that, in the significant period between these matters coming to light and the matters coming on for sentence, there was nothing untoward recorded against him. The appellant informed the Court that the incident has had significant consequences for him in that there were two arson attacks on his home, he had to move house, and the HSE made contact with the public service body that he worked with because they were concerned that the public had access to the parks and gardens where he was working and as a result of that he lost his employment. The HSE also made a decision to take his children into care and he was confined to supervised access once a week. The Court was told that he attempted to take his own life. The appellant focused on the fact that the DPP said that this offence was at the lower end of the scale and he for his part endorsed that view and said that physical acts are at the lower end of the scale.

Held by Birmingham J that the appellant"s plea was of value because it obviated the necessity for the girls to have to give evidence. Birmingham J held that there were a number of surrounding circumstances that gave rise to very real concerns, namely the age of the girls, the offences were surrounded with circumstances of indecency, and the breach of trust which occurred when the two girls came to the home of a classmate and a playmate. Birmingham J held that it was clear from the victim impact reports that the offences had had a significant impact on the girls and on their families. The Court was of the view that the sentence imposed was a significant departure from the norm and was out of line with sentences that have in the past been imposed in respect of comparable offending and indeed would bring the case into a quite different category of offending. That being so, the Court was of the view that there was an error of principle identified and that the sentence could not stand, but should be set aside.

Birmingham J held that the Court would set aside the sentence of six years imprisonment and substitute a sentence of three years imprisonment. The Court would also make provision for two years post release supervision. Birmingham J held that the appellant would be on the sex offenders register and there would be an obligation to comply with the requirements of the Probation Service on his release from prison; if he were to breach the obligations in relation to the register or the obligations in relation to the post release supervision, then he would be committing a further offence and would face being brought back before the courts with the possibility of receiving a further sentence.

Appeal allowed.

1 1. In this case the appellant Mr. L. appeals against the severity of a sentence that was imposed on him on the 3 ^rd May, 2013. The sentence under appeal is one of six years imprisonment with provision also being made for six years post release supervision.

...